The Assumption of Mary

[Studious One]

Since none of the Apostles called Mary "Mother" in the Word of God, I guess they were not Christlike?

 

[narnia59]

Since none of the Apostles called Mary "Mother" in the Word of God, I guess they were not Christlike?

Since the word of God is not limited to that which is written (according to Scripture anyway), I'd say it's just speculation on your part they never called her mother.

Did Christ not honor his mother? Do you think the Father found that insulting, and taking away from what was due Him?

Imagine, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords could honor Mary as His mother, but some insist on calling her sister and equal, and believe God would find it insulting if they honored her as well.

 

[Dylan Michael]

Well, well, aren't you special!!! How do you balance all this out with Scriptures?:

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

That's rather Irrelevant, because we don't have gods before Him.

 

[Zeek]

Out of deference to the request, I will only focus on this one. Frankly, you're wrong here. The author of Hebrews is not speaking of what lies ahead, he is speaking of what has already occurred. "You have come", not "You will come"

Hebrews 12:
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.

We have already come to the spirits of just men made perfect. Every time we approach in prayer the throne of grace, the heavenly Jerusalem, we come every bit as much into their presence as we do the angels, God, and Christ.

And while I don't disagree that Paul is the probable author of Hebrews based upon tradition, I am curious why you would accept this extra-Biblical tradition.

Hi Narnia....To keep in with the Mod request....I have answered this on the thread Saints can we pray to them.

 

[Zeek]

I'm not sure how one believes they can become a brother to Christ and be adopted into his family, consider God as Fathe, yet exclude Mary as mother.

After all, Christ takes his human nature from Mary. In the sense of his 'parenthood', we are by nature his mother's "people". Yet some so can so easily refuse her motherhood while claiming Christ as brother.

How can we pretend to be Christ-like and not honor Mary as our mother?

Probably the main reason is just as Studious says...we don't see this practiced, taught or adopted in the life-time of the Apostles. I guess I can understand how later on people could make the connection between Jesus, Mary and us Believers....but like so many things, it has gone waaaay beyond just calling Mary mother, or acknowledging the role she played in birthing, tending, caring and ministering to her Son, and seeing what a beautiful example of faith and trust this dear Jewish woman was.

Perhaps if the teaching surrounding Mary wasn't cluttered up with so much hype, hysteria and hyperbole, many more Believers would have developed a more noticeable affection, but I'm afraid the Marian doctrines have proved divisive, and have ultimately dishonoured her by going over-board, and making her very status one of contention....it is a great schismatic tragedy and a clear demonstration and warning of the perils of man-made teaching that drifts from foundational truth.

 

[Slaol121]

If the early church thought Mary was crowned the Queen of Heaven after she was assumed into heaven, why did they not add this little bit of doctrine to the canon of scripture? Or, if not add it to the canon, they could have at the very least recorded that it happened in a time remotely close to her actual death.

 

[Thekla]

That is just not true...at least not in the way you try to claim Thekla...Scripture would be rife with references and practical examples if it was practiced for millenia, and we wouldn't be discussing it....one doesn't build doctrine on a single oblique reference, or expect a common and accepted practice to have been omitted.

There were many Jewish practices that were unbiblical...some seem to have been acceptable, and others that actually went against good teaching and instruction were rejected by Jesus and the Apostles, but retained in Judaism...especially things relating to fables and esoteric teachings as found in the Zohar or Kabbalah

I don't want to offend, but I do not consider you to be an authority on the historical practices in Judaism. To call something "true vs. false" requires more than an opinion.

 

[addo]

Where, Sheina, where?

What relevance does it have?

I'm not sure how one believes they can become a brother to Christ and be adopted into his family, consider God as Fathe, yet exclude Mary as mother.

After all, Christ takes his human nature from Mary. In the sense of his 'parenthood', we are by nature his mother's "people". Yet some so can so easily refuse her motherhood while claiming Christ as brother.

How can we pretend to be Christ-like and not honor Mary as our mother?

God is our Father because (1) He made us and (2) we are made in His image. We become sons of God because we are reborn in God in His image.

We are His body because we function like one: different parts, different functions but one Head that controls it all, one blood that cleanses all and feeds all, etc. but I don't think Paul wanted to take this analogy so far as you take it. Analogies have limits. Jesus is the send Adam but he didn't fall, He wasn't created. Now that I think of, since Christ is the second Adam it is better to say that Christ's spiritual body is like Adam's body, made by God, with no mother or father except God. This fits much better since believers are "begotten" by God. We are sons of God because He made us and we are in His image. We are brothers of Christ in that we too have the image of God, even though not as perfect.

So be careful with analogies. Wisdom says which limits one must not cross with these.

 

[laconicstudent]

What relevance does it have?

If the Theotokos wasn't bodily assumed, her relics would be just about the most important in Christendom, a source of pilgrimage and veneration and countless miracles. Where are they?

God is our Father because (1) He made us and (2) we are made in His image. We become sons of God because we are reborn in God in His image.

We are His body because we function like one: different parts, different functions but one Head that controls it all, one blood that cleanses all and feeds all, etc. but I don't think Paul wanted to take this analogy so far as you take it. Analogies have limits. Jesus is the send Adam but he didn't fall, He wasn't created. Now that I think of, since Christ is the second Adam it is better to say that Christ's spiritual body is like Adam's body, made by God, with no mother or father except God. This fits much better since believers are "begotten" by God. We are sons of God because He made us and we are in His image. We are brothers of Christ in that we too have the image of God, even though not as perfect.

So be careful with analogies. Wisdom says which limits one must not cross with these.

Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zazal

That is just not true...at least not in the way you try to claim Thekla...Scripture would be rife with references and practical examples if it was practiced for millenia, and we wouldn't be discussing it....one doesn't build doctrine on a single oblique reference, or expect a common and accepted practice to have been omitted.

There were many Jewish practices that were unbiblical...some seem to have been acceptable, and others that actually went against good teaching and instruction were rejected by Jesus and the Apostles, but retained in Judaism...especially things relating to fables and esoteric teachings as found in the Zohar or Kabbalah
​

I don't want to offend, but I do not consider you to be an authority on the historical practices in Judaism. To call something "true vs. false" requires more than an opinion.

Don't ever worry about offending me....I've got broad shoulders

I wasn't asking you to take my word on historical Jewish practices...you can do the homework yourself and decide from a wide variety of sources.
First and foremost Scripture makes mention of some of the rather foolish Jewish teachings that abounded at the time, along with an assortment of old wives tales and unprofitable practices. Paul was at pains to warn disciples not to take these things on board or allow them to get mixed in with true doctrine.

1Tim 4:7 But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women

Titus 1: 13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth

 

[addo]

If the Theotokos wasn't bodily assumed, her relics would be just about the most important in Christendom, a source of pilgrimage and veneration and countless miracles. Where are they?

How early was the assumption of Mary believed?

Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".

The second Eve is the Church. Do you have any other argument besides Mary's obedience?

 

[bbbbbbb]

If the Theotokos wasn't bodily assumed, her relics would be just about the most important in Christendom, a source of pilgrimage and veneration and countless miracles. Where are they?

God is our Father because (1) He made us and (2) we are made in His image. We become sons of God because we are reborn in God in His image.

We are His body because we function like one: different parts, different functions but one Head that controls it all, one blood that cleanses all and feeds all, etc. but I don't think Paul wanted to take this analogy so far as you take it. Analogies have limits. Jesus is the send Adam but he didn't fall, He wasn't created. Now that I think of, since Christ is the second Adam it is better to say that Christ's spiritual body is like Adam's body, made by God, with no mother or father except God. This fits much better since believers are "begotten" by God. We are sons of God because He made us and we are in His image. We are brothers of Christ in that we too have the image of God, even though not as perfect.

So be careful with analogies. Wisdom says which limits one must not cross with these.

Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".[/quote]

Loreto, Italy has laid a major claim to Marian relics. Here is a fine link to a webpage by NewAdvent, the famed Catholic website - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Santa Casa di Loreto (Holy House of Loreto)

My own opinion is that if you can believe this to be true you can believe any and everything put forward concerning Mary, except, of course, that she was the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.

 

[laconicstudent]

How early was the assumption of Mary believed?

Since the Apostolic era.

The second Eve is the Church. Do you have any other argument besides Mary's obedience?

The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith."

--St. Irenaeus Adversus haereses,3:22

"It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God." --St. Ambrose of Milan

"Death through Eve, Life through Mary." --St. Jerome. Epistles 22,2 I

"Christ was born of a woman so that just as death came through a woman, so through Mary, life might return." --St. Peter Chrysologus

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-serif, sans-serif]"'that He became Man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the powers of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her would be called the Son of God. And she replied: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word."
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-serif, sans-serif]--St. Justin Martyr[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-serif, sans-serif]"...it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, though a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight."
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-serif, sans-serif]--Tertullian[/FONT]

 

[Zeek]

If the Theotokos wasn't bodily assumed, her relics would be just about the most important in Christendom, a source of pilgrimage and veneration and countless miracles. Where are they?

When did New Testament relics start to become an important part of cultural Church belief, and who initiated the practice?

Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".

Messiah as the second Adam, is clearly taught in Scripture....and the teaching is clear, making a distinction between the natural and the spiritual...and how Messiah fulfills this.

1Cor 15:44....If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.


Trying to bring Mary into the frame...mainly in a redemptive role, and to call her the second Eve, has somehow been missed by those inspired to write Scripture....but their oversight has gladly been remedied by some later revelations.

I don't think so ....

There is no teaching implicit in naming her the Second Eve....only the tenuous link...this isn't teaching anything...it is simply reaching, grasping at straws.

 

[laconicstudent]

Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".

Loreto, Italy has laid a major claim to Marian relics. Here is a fine link to a webpage by NewAdvent, the famed Catholic website - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Santa Casa di Loreto (Holy House of Loreto)[/quote]

The word "relic" doesn't even occur on that page.

My own opinion is that if you can believe this to be true you can believe any and everything put forward concerning Mary, except, of course, that she was the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.

My own opinion is that I already believe in a God I have never directly observed becoming incarnate, dying, and rising from the dead after three days. If antediluvian patriarchs and prophets can be assumed bodily, why not the Mother of God? And I think its hardly a stretch to say that St. Joseph would hesitate to defile the Ark.

 

[laconicstudent]

When did New Testament relics start to become an important part of cultural Church belief, and who initiated the practice?

God. 2 Kings 13:21

Messiah as the second Adam, is clearly taught in Scripture....and the teaching is clear, making a distinction between the natural and the spiritual...and how Messiah fulfills this.

1Cor 15:44....If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.


Trying to bring Mary into the frame...mainly in a redemptive role, and to call her the second Eve, has somehow been missed by those inspired to write Scripture....but their oversight has gladly been remedied by some later revelations.

Strange, I don't think it was overlooked. They all saw fit to mention her, and her participation in the Incarnation, so I'm not seeing how they ignored her.

I don't think so ....

There is no teaching implicit in naming her the Second Eve....only the tenuous link...this isn't teaching anything...it is simply reaching, grasping at straws.

I'm sorry you dislike what the Church has always found to be obvious. The parallels between Eve and the Theotokos aren't exactly subtle.

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zazal

When did New Testament relics start to become an important part of cultural Church belief, and who initiated the practice?
​

God. 2 Kings 13:21

So the dead man who accidently touched the dead prophets bones and was revived, started a trend that can be seen through what examples in the New Testament? (bear in mind Jewish Law regarding the dead)

Originally Posted by Zazal

Messiah as the second Adam, is clearly taught in Scripture....and the teaching is clear, making a distinction between the natural and the spiritual...and how Messiah fulfills this.

1Cor 15:44....If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.


Trying to bring Mary into the frame...mainly in a redemptive role, and to call her the second Eve, has somehow been missed by those inspired to write Scripture....but their oversight has gladly been remedied by some later revelations.
​

Strange, I don't think it was overlooked. They all saw fit to mention her, after all.

You ducked what I was getting at...obviously it makes perfect sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

Originally Posted by Zazal

I don't think so

....

There is no teaching implicit in naming her the Second Eve....only the tenuous link...this isn't teaching anything...it is simply reaching, grasping at straws.
​

I'm sorry you dislike what the Church has always found to be obvious. The parallels between Eve and the Theotokos aren't exactly subtle.
__________________

Its not a question of disliking it...I don't believe it....at least not in the way it is taught....On the evidence all I can say in truth is that it was possible her body was assumed, but we are not privvy to the veracity of this sort of speculation, and the Rome Church kind of shuts the door on pursuing that possibility because of everything else they attach to Mary.

 

[Thekla]

Originally Posted by Zazal

There were many Jewish practices that were unbiblical...some seem to have been acceptable, and others that actually went against good teaching and instruction were rejected by Jesus and the Apostles, but retained in Judaism...especially things relating to fables and esoteric teachings as found in the Zohar or Kabbalah​

And this practice predates both.
​

I wasn't asking you to take my word on historical Jewish practices...you can do the homework yourself and decide from a wide variety of sources.
First and foremost Scripture makes mention of some of the rather foolish Jewish teachings that abounded at the time, along with an assortment of old wives tales and unprofitable practices. Paul was at pains to warn disciples not to take these things on board or allow them to get mixed in with true doctrine.

I have done research as well - and from a variety of sources, thanks
And which Jewish practices were they ?
And what were the fables and myths ?

 

[Zeek]

Zazal said.....I wasn't asking you to take my word on historical Jewish practices...you can do the homework yourself and decide from a wide variety of sources.
First and foremost Scripture makes mention of some of the rather foolish Jewish teachings that abounded at the time, along with an assortment of old wives tales and unprofitable practices. Paul was at pains to warn disciples not to take these things on board or allow them to get mixed in with true doctrine.

I have done research as well - and from a variety of sources, thanks
And which Jewish practices were they ?
And what were the fables and myths ?

Well if you have done the research why are you still disputing with me, and trying to get me chasing my tail by finding relevant quotes about Jewish myth and fable, when you can also see it quite clearly mentioned in Scripture?

However for the benefit of others, here are some of the Jewish practices, found in the Bible...which are at the very least...unprofitable.

1. Some Jews took tithing to ridiculous limits....even tithing minute portions of herbs... Luke 11:37

2. Some Jews made ceremonial washing into a religious art-form...Mark 7:1

3. Some Jews wrongly taught the worship of Angels...Colossians 2:18

4. Some listened to fables and were so consumed with discussing various intellectual and moral possibilities that all they did was raise question after question, but never pursuing truth and desiring holiness. 1Tim 1:3

5. Circumcision became a snare as well, simply because many Jews did not understand the grace of G-d, and that He wasn't trying to make the Gentiles Jews...but a New Creation, together with Jews. Galations 5:6
...........................................................................

The Fables and Myths that abounded are probably referenced through works that were in circulation at the time such as preserved today in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.

The Talmud contains various stories that are passed down from ancient verbal tradition, but are more like fairy-tales.

Then there are the books of mysticism that were written later, but demonstrate a long-standing fascination with esoteric, gnostic occultic practices.

I know people within Jewish communities that practice soothsaying and give talks on astrology and tarot....and these are strict Orthodox communities.

In dealing with Jewish Folklore, Myth and Fable, LOUIS GINZBERG writes this revealing snippet, which to my mind gives a clue, why there is such controversy in some of the teachings that emerged as authoritative, during the first four centuries.

Besides the pseudepigrapha there are other Jewish sources in Christian garb. In the rich literature of the Church Fathers many a Jewish legend lies embalmed which one would seek in vain in Jewish books. Legends of the Jews - Louis Ginzberg's Preface to the Legends of the Jews

 

[laconicstudent]

Thought people might enjoy some hymns.

YouTube - O Virgin Pure-Orthodox Byantine Chant

YouTube - Today the Barren Gates are Opened